As everyone already knows, I have always been a strong advocate for gay rights. As a human being, and not just a liberal or LGBT, I feel that it is not only important, but beneficial for society to protect the rights of LGBT individuals. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this, which is fine, that is until they start to push their disagreement into the law, denying our rights and trampling on the freedom of their fellow LGBT citizens. So I am starting this forum topic to discuss a major issue I have noticed regarding the biased views, ignorance and misconceptions of conservatives regarding homosexuality, and gay rights.

I have debated with conservatives on the topic of homosexuality, and various other gay issues and each time I have been met with disappointment. Besides religion, I have yet to hear at least ONE logical or compelling argument against homosexuality, same-sex marriage or gay rights in general. In fact, most, if not all, conservatives I have debated with on the topic have not been able to present an argument without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments and other logical fallacy. This leads me to believe their opposition is merely based on ignorance and bigotry, however when I point this out they find every reason to deny this fact, and turn the tables on me, accusing me of attacking them because I pointed out the bias, hypocrisy, inconsistencies and lack of logic in their arguments. They would even go as far to call me intolerant because I did not tolerate their intolerance.

So has anyone else had this issue? If so, how do you deal with it? I find it very annoying and frustrating to say the least. And if you are opposed to the issues I stated above, feel free to explain why (if you can) WITHOUT being logically flawed and inconsistent. Thanks everyone!

At 2/22/2015 1:08:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:I have debated with conservatives on the topic of homosexuality, and various other gay issues and each time I have been met with disappointment. Besides religion, I have yet to hear at least ONE logical or compelling argument against homosexuality, same-sex marriage or gay rights in general. In fact, most, if not all, conservatives I have debated with on the topic have not been able to present an argument without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments and other logical fallacy.

"Slippery slope" is an informal fallacy, because there are cases in which it is indeed justified to point out that there is a slippery slope with no restriction in sight. With gay marriage, the progressive argument is that "if people love each other, they should be allowed to get married". It is by this very same argument that we could say that therefore three people should be allowed to get married, or even 10 or 100, or that a man could marry a dog or a child if it could somehow be proven to consent, and so on. This is in my view a valid application of the slippery slope argument.

The progressive argument implies an in principle boundless extension of the institution of marriage.

1. Are you gay or have any directly personal vested interest in this topic?2. The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but it can be.3. I have not had this issue that you have, which is why I ask my first question. Or, I should say I do not always have this issue (sure, there are some). Similarly, I have had issues with the left (not always) in their intolerance as well. Do you know how many nasty looks and comments I received at the Gay Pride rally when I asked where the opposition tents were? It's almost like they didn't want me to make my own decision. (that's advocates for you, though LOL)

At 2/22/2015 1:08:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:I have debated with conservatives on the topic of homosexuality, and various other gay issues and each time I have been met with disappointment. Besides religion, I have yet to hear at least ONE logical or compelling argument against homosexuality, same-sex marriage or gay rights in general. In fact, most, if not all, conservatives I have debated with on the topic have not been able to present an argument without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments and other logical fallacy.

"Slippery slope" is an informal fallacy, because there are cases in which it is indeed justified to point out that there is a slippery slope with no restriction in sight. With gay marriage, the progressive argument is that "if people love each other, they should be allowed to get married". It is by this very same argument that we could say that therefore three people should be allowed to get married, or even 10 or 100, or that a man could marry a dog or a child if it could somehow be proven to consent, and so on. This is in my view a valid application of the slippery slope argument.

I disagree.The slippery slope argument is valid with incest and (maybe) polygamy. But, since there are other obstacles for the man/dog marriage, it is not directly related.

The progressive argument implies an in principle boundless extension of the institution of marriage.

At 2/22/2015 1:08:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:I have debated with conservatives on the topic of homosexuality, and various other gay issues and each time I have been met with disappointment. Besides religion, I have yet to hear at least ONE logical or compelling argument against homosexuality, same-sex marriage or gay rights in general. In fact, most, if not all, conservatives I have debated with on the topic have not been able to present an argument without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments and other logical fallacy.

"Slippery slope" is an informal fallacy, because there are cases in which it is indeed justified to point out that there is a slippery slope with no restriction in sight. With gay marriage, the progressive argument is that "if people love each other, they should be allowed to get married". It is by this very same argument that we could say that therefore three people should be allowed to get married, or even 10 or 100, or that a man could marry a dog or a child if it could somehow be proven to consent, and so on. This is in my view a valid application of the slippery slope argument.

The progressive argument implies an in principle boundless extension of the institution of marriage.

But I never use that argument, and I still get confronted with the same problem over and over. What a lot of conservatives don't understand is that using the slippery slope fallacy can still be applied to heterosexual unions as well. We can just as easily argue that because heterosexual couples can get married because they "love each other" everyone else should. Another issue I have with the slippery slope argument is their inability to understand the concept of consent. As you pointed out, a man marrying a dog or a child would not be considered a logical argument. Dogs and children cannot consent or legally sign a marriage contract, so it wouldn't even make sense to use that as an example. And the "what if" argument doesn't really hold ground either, considering we can go into a million what ifs to prove a point that doesn't exist. That is why I am looking for something else, because it's flawed, overused and logically inconsistent.

At 2/22/2015 1:08:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:I have debated with conservatives on the topic of homosexuality, and various other gay issues and each time I have been met with disappointment. Besides religion, I have yet to hear at least ONE logical or compelling argument against homosexuality, same-sex marriage or gay rights in general. In fact, most, if not all, conservatives I have debated with on the topic have not been able to present an argument without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments and other logical fallacy.

"Slippery slope" is an informal fallacy, because there are cases in which it is indeed justified to point out that there is a slippery slope with no restriction in sight. With gay marriage, the progressive argument is that "if people love each other, they should be allowed to get married". It is by this very same argument that we could say that therefore three people should be allowed to get married, or even 10 or 100, or that a man could marry a dog or a child if it could somehow be proven to consent, and so on. This is in my view a valid application of the slippery slope argument.

I disagree.The slippery slope argument is valid with incest and (maybe) polygamy. But, since there are other obstacles for the man/dog marriage, it is not directly related.

Well, I was being kind of disingenuous in adding the caveat that it would somehow be proved to consent. I'd agree in general that it wouldn't be able to. However, at the point where we've accepted that unlimited numbers of people, whether incest or whatever else, are getting married, and the argument has come to details of the consent of animals or children, I think most people would accept that the argument is essentially lost for the pro-marriage side.

At 2/22/2015 1:29:31 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:1. Are you gay or have any directly personal vested interest in this topic?2. The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but it can be.3. I have not had this issue that you have, which is why I ask my first question. Or, I should say I do not always have this issue (sure, there are some). Similarly, I have had issues with the left (not always) in their intolerance as well. Do you know how many nasty looks and comments I received at the Gay Pride rally when I asked where the opposition tents were? It's almost like they didn't want me to make my own decision. (that's advocates for you, though LOL)

1. My sexual orientation is irrelevant to any of these issues. I don't have to be gay to support gay rights, but I did imply where I lie on the sexual scale in my introduction.

2. The fact that the slippery slope argument CAN be a fallacy is exactly the issue here. Most arguments I have heard using the slippery slope ARE based on fallacy, not actual logic.

3. Why would you expect an opposition tent to be at a gay pride rally in the first place? Asking that question is very condescending to begin with. Would you expect a black or Jewish table at a clan rally? No, because it doesn't make sense. If you were against it you wouldn't be there in the first place. That isn't hypocrisy, that's common sense, which is why they were looking at you as if something was wrong with you, I would too.

And I should add, you are more than likely to stand on the side with all the other protesters who hold up signs and scream "God hate faggotry" with the rest of them. There are there and nobody is stopping them from being there in case you didn't realize that before.

At 2/22/2015 1:34:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:But I never use that argument, and I still get confronted with the same problem over and over. What a lot of conservatives don't understand is that using the slippery slope fallacy can still be applied to heterosexual unions as well. We can just as easily argue that because heterosexual couples can get married because they "love each other" everyone else should.

This is true. Thus, if we apply it consistently, we'd end up with either a rejection of the institution altogether, or simply accepting that it must necessarily be based on arbitrary parameters and therefore abandoning the progressive argument.

Another issue I have with the slippery slope argument is their inability to understand the concept of consent. As you pointed out, a man marrying a dog or a child would not be considered a logical argument. Dogs and children cannot consent or legally sign a marriage contract, so it wouldn't even make sense to use that as an example. And the "what if" argument doesn't really hold ground either, considering we can go into a million what ifs to prove a point that doesn't exist. That is why I am looking for something else, because it's flawed, overused and logically inconsistent.

But it still applies to marrying potentially multiples, or tens or hundreds of people, or marrying inside one's own family. Even limited to consent, there is still a slippery slope in allowing anyone who consents to marry anyone else who consents.

At 2/22/2015 1:34:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:But I never use that argument, and I still get confronted with the same problem over and over. What a lot of conservatives don't understand is that using the slippery slope fallacy can still be applied to heterosexual unions as well. We can just as easily argue that because heterosexual couples can get married because they "love each other" everyone else should.

This is true. Thus, if we apply it consistently, we'd end up with either a rejection of the institution altogether, or simply accepting that it must necessarily be based on arbitrary parameters and therefore abandoning the progressive argument.

There are already arbitrary parameters to the issue of marriage, consenting adults.

Another issue I have with the slippery slope argument is their inability to understand the concept of consent. As you pointed out, a man marrying a dog or a child would not be considered a logical argument. Dogs and children cannot consent or legally sign a marriage contract, so it wouldn't even make sense to use that as an example. And the "what if" argument doesn't really hold ground either, considering we can go into a million what ifs to prove a point that doesn't exist. That is why I am looking for something else, because it's flawed, overused and logically inconsistent.

But it still applies to marrying potentially multiples, or tens or hundreds of people, or marrying inside one's own family. Even limited to consent, there is still a slippery slope in allowing anyone who consents to marry anyone else who consents.

The problem with marrying multiple partners is that it is very difficult to regulate. I am not against it, but considering how unmanageable it is I would understand why it is not recognized by the federal government. It does happen in some communities though, usually remote and separate from the general public. Regardless, marriage is only one small part of a long list of issues.

At 2/22/2015 1:51:19 AM, briantheliberal wrote:The problem with marrying multiple partners is that it is very difficult to regulate. I am not against it, but considering how unmanageable it is I would understand why it is not recognized by the federal government. It does happen in some communities though, usually remote and separate from the general public. Regardless, marriage is only one small part of a long list of issues.

What if allowing same-sex marriage makes marriage more difficult to regulate? You seem to be using the same conservative austerity arguments only applying them selectively.

At 2/22/2015 1:29:31 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:1. Are you gay or have any directly personal vested interest in this topic?2. The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but it can be.3. I have not had this issue that you have, which is why I ask my first question. Or, I should say I do not always have this issue (sure, there are some). Similarly, I have had issues with the left (not always) in their intolerance as well. Do you know how many nasty looks and comments I received at the Gay Pride rally when I asked where the opposition tents were? It's almost like they didn't want me to make my own decision. (that's advocates for you, though LOL)

1. My sexual orientation is irrelevant to any of these issues. I don't have to be gay to support gay rights, but I did imply where I lie on the sexual scale in my introduction.

I also asked if you had were personally vested, which is relevant, since you are complaining.If an issue is very close to someone, they are understandably defensive, and that makes discussion difficult. (re: your treatment of me in the other thread)

2. The fact that the slippery slope argument CAN be a fallacy is exactly the issue here. Most arguments I have heard using the slippery slope ARE based on fallacy, not actual logic.

Most, not all.And, this is why the arguments for marriage, and gay marriage, are important, and the utility of civil recognition must be defined.

3. Why would you expect an opposition tent to be at a gay pride rally in the first place?

Because I knew for a fact there was one. They were quarantined somewhere after a lawsuit.

Asking that question is very condescending to begin with.

Not when you are asking the information booth, and the festival sued the group to keep them "away", and it was agreed there would be a "zone" or area where they are allowed to roam, but not in the majority of the rally area (it was quite big).

Would you expect a black or Jewish table at a clan rally? No, because it doesn't make sense.

First, it's Klan. And, no. But, again, this I knew was there.

If you were against it you wouldn't be there in the first place. That isn't hypocrisy, that's common sense, which is why they were looking at you as if something was wrong with you, I would too.

So, when gay marriage is on the ballot, it is silly of someone to try to get information about the topic?Also, keep in mind, this is at a city park, not some hotel lobby.

And I should add, you are more than likely to stand on the side with all the other protesters who hold up signs and scream "God hate faggotry" with the rest of them. There are there and nobody is stopping them from being there in case you didn't realize that before.

Don't label me, and actually they weren't allowed to be there, hence my question to the information booth.The Gay Pride Weekend is actually quite a big deal in Minneapolis, and there were cops on the scene to arrest people handing out Bibles (I saw it first hand).

At 2/22/2015 1:51:19 AM, briantheliberal wrote:The problem with marrying multiple partners is that it is very difficult to regulate. I am not against it, but considering how unmanageable it is I would understand why it is not recognized by the federal government. It does happen in some communities though, usually remote and separate from the general public. Regardless, marriage is only one small part of a long list of issues.

What if allowing same-sex marriage makes marriage more difficult to regulate? You seem to be using the same conservative austerity arguments only applying them selectively.

But does it? No, because same-sex marriage is now legal in over 30 states and the sky hasn't fallen yet. It still comprises of two people, consenting adults. My claim about polygamy was in regard to the number of people involved, which is difficult to regulate when it comes to variety of factors involved in marriage, including the possible outcome of divorce, which is already difficult to finalize between two people. That was my point. Whether or not polygamy is legalized is still not MY concern, and I am not arguing against it either.

At 2/22/2015 1:29:31 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:1. Are you gay or have any directly personal vested interest in this topic?2. The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, but it can be.3. I have not had this issue that you have, which is why I ask my first question. Or, I should say I do not always have this issue (sure, there are some). Similarly, I have had issues with the left (not always) in their intolerance as well. Do you know how many nasty looks and comments I received at the Gay Pride rally when I asked where the opposition tents were? It's almost like they didn't want me to make my own decision. (that's advocates for you, though LOL)

1. My sexual orientation is irrelevant to any of these issues. I don't have to be gay to support gay rights, but I did imply where I lie on the sexual scale in my introduction.

I also asked if you had were personally vested, which is relevant, since you are complaining.

No, actually it's not relevant. I don't have to be gay to argue for gay rights just like I don't have to be a woman to argue for abortion.

If an issue is very close to someone, they are understandably defensive, and that makes discussion difficult. (re: your treatment of me in the other thread)

Maybe so, but there are homosexuals who are defensively against same-sex marriage and straight people who are defensively for it, this is a clear indication that whether or not you can personally relate to the issue has nothing to do with it.

2. The fact that the slippery slope argument CAN be a fallacy is exactly the issue here. Most arguments I have heard using the slippery slope ARE based on fallacy, not actual logic.

Most, not all.

That is what I said.

And, this is why the arguments for marriage, and gay marriage, are important, and the utility of civil recognition must be defined.

Okay so what would you define it as if you had the authority to do so?

3. Why would you expect an opposition tent to be at a gay pride rally in the first place?

Because I knew for a fact there was one. They were quarantined somewhere after a lawsuit.

That issue is between them and whoever runs the pride committee, and has nothing to do with me or any of the issues I presented.

Asking that question is very condescending to begin with.

Not when you are asking the information booth, and the festival sued the group to keep them "away", and it was agreed there would be a "zone" or area where they are allowed to roam, but not in the majority of the rally area (it was quite big).

Again, not my problem and irrelevant to my argument. But there are in fact places where people who oppose do have their right to protest, so long as they do it peacefully and not harass other people.

Would you expect a black or Jewish table at a clan rally? No, because it doesn't make sense.

First, it's Klan. And, no. But, again, this I knew was there.

I don't care how it's spelled to be honest.

If you were against it you wouldn't be there in the first place. That isn't hypocrisy, that's common sense, which is why they were looking at you as if something was wrong with you, I would too.

So, when gay marriage is on the ballot, it is silly of someone to try to get information about the topic?

What does this have to do with a tent at gay pride? In fact, what does this has to do with anything?

Also, keep in mind, this is at a city park, not some hotel lobby.

Again, I really don't care.

And I should add, you are more than likely to stand on the side with all the other protesters who hold up signs and scream "God hate faggotry" with the rest of them. There are there and nobody is stopping them from being there in case you didn't realize that before.

Don't label me, and actually they weren't allowed to be there, hence my question to the information booth.

I didn't label you, you asked a question and I responded. You labelled yourself.

The Gay Pride Weekend is actually quite a big deal in Minneapolis, and there were cops on the scene to arrest people handing out Bibles (I saw it first hand).

I have never had that experience, so what you saw isn't exactly proof that it actually happened. And honestly, all of this is irrelevant to me and all of the points I made.

Government should not discriminate or condone any person"s sexual activities. Government should treat each person as an individual, single or married. Giving benefits to married people is the source of these problems with the solution being ending all civil marriages.If liberals had any consistency they would oppose adding to the number of possible marriages. Marriage promotes wealth inequality by increasing heirs to family wealth using family trusts and death tax exemptions. Marriage allows couple to receive additional veterans' and military benefits for spouses, everyone know that liberals despise the military. For liberals all medical and death decisions are to be made by government, thus visitation, medical decisions during incapacitation or expressed wishes for treatment should not be considered in the liberal case.Bigoted liberals only want gay rights to gain justification of sexual activities that others disagree with. Marriage itself is against liberal values yet liberals will want to add gays to the problem.

And you say I'm illogical....Brian, I don't know what to say to you. I really don't. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall.

In our last two conversations, I feel that I am being responded to, but not really heard or my point being addressed. It appears you are trying to discredit me, then choose not to believe me. You clearly have a vested interest in this, and that makes honest discussion difficult.

If I am wrong, so be it. If this is just in my head, I apologize.But your response to 1 was ignoring what I said, and your response to 3 was largely a personal attack, and your response to my response in 3 seemed to ignore what was said.

At 2/22/2015 1:08:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:As everyone already knows, I have always been a strong advocate for gay rights. As a human being, and not just a liberal or LGBT, I feel that it is not only important, but beneficial for society to protect the rights of LGBT individuals. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this, which is fine, that is until they start to push their disagreement into the law, denying our rights and trampling on the freedom of their fellow LGBT citizens. So I am starting this forum topic to discuss a major issue I have noticed regarding the biased views, ignorance and misconceptions of conservatives regarding homosexuality, and gay rights.

I have debated with conservatives on the topic of homosexuality, and various other gay issues and each time I have been met with disappointment. Besides religion, I have yet to hear at least ONE logical or compelling argument against homosexuality, same-sex marriage or gay rights in general. In fact, most, if not all, conservatives I have debated with on the topic have not been able to present an argument without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments and other logical fallacy. This leads me to believe their opposition is merely based on ignorance and bigotry, however when I point this out they find every reason to deny this fact, and turn the tables on me, accusing me of attacking them because I pointed out the bias, hypocrisy, inconsistencies and lack of logic in their arguments. They would even go as far to call me intolerant because I did not tolerate their intolerance.

So has anyone else had this issue? If so, how do you deal with it? I find it very annoying and frustrating to say the least. And if you are opposed to the issues I stated above, feel free to explain why (if you can) WITHOUT being logically flawed and inconsistent. Thanks everyone!

At 2/22/2015 4:33:16 AM, Chang29 wrote:Government should not discriminate or condone any person"s sexual activities. Government should treat each person as an individual, single or married. Giving benefits to married people is the source of these problems with the solution being ending all civil marriages.

First of all banning marriage all together is not the issue here. Second, gay rights and issues are far more than just "sexual activities". And third, all of this applies to heterosexuals as well.

If liberals had any consistency they would oppose adding to the number of possible marriages. Marriage promotes wealth inequality by increasing heirs to family wealth using family trusts and death tax exemptions. Marriage allows couple to receive additional veterans' and military benefits for spouses, everyone know that liberals despise the military. For liberals all medical and death decisions are to be made by government, thus visitation, medical decisions during incapacitation or expressed wishes for treatment should not be considered in the liberal case.

None of this is relevant. You are using an institution that EVERY POLITICAL PARTY is involved in and using it to exclusively attack liberals. You literally find EVERY little thing to attack liberals for, even when it makes absolutely no sense.

Bigoted liberals only want gay rights to gain justification of sexual activities that others disagree with. Marriage itself is against liberal values yet liberals will want to add gays to the problem.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? It's not about what OTHERS disagree with. Liberals don't support same-sex marriage to p-ss you off because you hate gays, stop making this about you and blaming liberals for every little thing you don't like. And marriage is not against liberal values, or any particular party's values. Both liberals AND conservatives participate in marriage. Again you display your ignorance on liberal views.

At 2/22/2015 1:34:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:Another issue I have with the slippery slope argument is their inability to understand the concept of consent. As you pointed out, a man marrying a dog or a child would not be considered a logical argument. Dogs and children cannot consent or legally sign a marriage contract, so it wouldn't even make sense to use that as an example. And the "what if" argument doesn't really hold ground either, considering we can go into a million what ifs to prove a point that doesn't exist. That is why I am looking for something else, because it's flawed, overused and logically inconsistent.

But it still applies to marrying potentially multiples, or tens or hundreds of people, or marrying inside one's own family. Even limited to consent, there is still a slippery slope in allowing anyone who consents to marry anyone else who consents.

Polygamy and incest are not the pro gay-marriage position, nor do they follow. Your basic argument is that an arbitrary line is nearly the same as no line at all, which is nonsense. In most states we sell cigarettes to 18 year olds and not 17 year olds. There is no scientific reason why someone who is 17 years of age should be considered not capable of making that decision where as an 18 year old is. It is an arbitrary line, and it holds up just fine.

Polygamy and incest will not follow for one very simple reason... Because no significant portion of the population wants that, and a large portion would be opposed. It does not matter if the majority of the population can provide a logically consistent argument because that is not what marriage is about. Marriage is whatever society wants it to be, and society is not about to condone incest. It's that simple.

You are illogical. Every time I have a conversation with you, you go off on a tangent and start spewing irrelevant bullsh-t that has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. Yet you expect me to take you seriously, it is annoying and makes it difficult to have a decent, organized discussion with you. You are one of those people who over complicate things because you are desperate to find every little reason to prove me wrong when you know you can't. This thread for example, we are having a discussion about gay rights and issues, why in the hell does it matter that there were wasn't a "I hate gays" tent at a gay pride rally? I DON'T CARE. Either stay on topic or stop posting on this forum, because the next time you bring up some completely irrelevant nonsense, I will ignore you.

Brian, I don't know what to say to you. I really don't. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall.

Now you know how I feel when when I have to read and respond to your dribble over and over.

In our last two conversations, I feel that I am being responded to, but not really heard or my point being addressed. It appears you are trying to discredit me, then choose not to believe me. You clearly have a vested interest in this, and that makes honest discussion difficult.

Because your points don't MAKE ANY SENSE. In fact, in our last conversation, you started making things up to prove a point that DID NOT EVEN EXIST. How the hell am I supposed to argue against that? Let alone understand what you are even talking about?

If I am wrong, so be it. If this is just in my head, I apologize.

That is what I have been trying to tell you for the longest time. I have nothing against you personally, but when it comes to arguing with you on these issues I cannot have a rational discussion with you. I don't know if you realize this, but a lot of the things you say do not make any sense to me and usually consist of random and irrelevant information.

But your response to 1 was ignoring what I said, and your response to 3 was largely a personal attack, and your response to my response in 3 seemed to ignore what was said.

Because question 1 is irrelevant and question 3 has nothing to do with anything I said and honestly made absolutely no sense at all.

At 2/22/2015 1:34:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:Another issue I have with the slippery slope argument is their inability to understand the concept of consent. As you pointed out, a man marrying a dog or a child would not be considered a logical argument. Dogs and children cannot consent or legally sign a marriage contract, so it wouldn't even make sense to use that as an example. And the "what if" argument doesn't really hold ground either, considering we can go into a million what ifs to prove a point that doesn't exist. That is why I am looking for something else, because it's flawed, overused and logically inconsistent.

But it still applies to marrying potentially multiples, or tens or hundreds of people, or marrying inside one's own family. Even limited to consent, there is still a slippery slope in allowing anyone who consents to marry anyone else who consents.

Polygamy and incest are not the pro gay-marriage position, nor do they follow. Your basic argument is that an arbitrary line is nearly the same as no line at all, which is nonsense. In most states we sell cigarettes to 18 year olds and not 17 year olds. There is no scientific reason why someone who is 17 years of age should be considered not capable of making that decision where as an 18 year old is. It is an arbitrary line, and it holds up just fine.

Polygamy and incest will not follow for one very simple reason... Because no significant portion of the population wants that, and a large portion would be opposed. It does not matter if the majority of the population can provide a logically consistent argument because that is not what marriage is about. Marriage is whatever society wants it to be, and society is not about to condone incest. It's that simple.

I'll explain what the Slippery Slope is as it is used in the gay marriage debate:

100 years ago or so, which sexual behaviors were and were not acceptable was not decided by people discussing it. Rather, people automatically accepted that certain sexual behaviors were abominable, a perversion of the way things should be. People didn't think about it; they just accepted that heterosexual monogamous marriage was the only acceptable place for sexual activity.

Then, something happened: society decided that the "old standards" we're not acceptable; if a sexual behavior was to be prohibited, it'd have to be because there it's the logical thing to do.

So, "gay rights" became an issue in the second half of the 20th century. Its advocates appealed to the idea that love is all that is needed (provided no one was exploited) to make a romantic and sexual relationship valid.If this were true, then that meant that denying gay people the freedom to engage in homosexual relationships was by default the denial of their basic rights. After a few decades of the media machine spouting this message, society bought into this idea. In the early 2000s decade the Supreme Court ruled that all state Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. About 10 years later, people would wake up to a United States where gay marriage was legal in most states. I predict that in 10 years not a single state will still have laws against gay marriage (or at least, the states that do would not be able to enforce these laws).

In the not too distant future, zoophiles, pedophiles, and sister smoochers (for lack of a better term) will begin campaigning for the right to engage in such relationships.By the standards even of most Pro-Gay people today, such a request would be foolishness, and surely our Government would not allow it, right?

Well, why not? I mean, if two siblings are adults and they both consent, why shouldn't they be able to have sex and get married? Is it because there's the potential for one person to coerce (though not technically force) their sibling into having sex with them? Well, though this might happen sometimes, there's also the possibility that the legalization of sodomy would lead to male bosses coercing their male employees into having sex, or a male friend might coerce you into having sex, but that isn't enough to deter the legalization of sodomy.Is it the fear that they'll have deformed children? That's not a good reason; sterilization and abortion are handy options.Is it that it'll reduce population growth? That wasn't enough to deter gay marriage, and besides, those omniscient intellectual elites say that the Earth needs to be less populated.Is it that brother-sister sex is gross? Well, plenty of people thought that homosexuality was gross, but that obviously wasn't a good reason.So tell me: why shouldn't incest between consenting adults be legalized?

Then, there's pedophilia. I don't have any argument in favor of it (I'm sure somebody will make a compelling case for it in the future), but child pornography should be allowed, right? To satisfy the libido of those sexually frustrated pedophiles, of course. Is it exploiting children? Not really; they don't care who sees them naked, and if they're embarrassed by it later in life, go suck it. And if not real children, then child hentai. It exploits no one.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:I'll explain what the Slippery Slope is as it is used in the gay marriage debate:

100 years ago or so, which sexual behaviors were and were not acceptable was not decided by people discussing it. Rather, people automatically accepted that certain sexual behaviors were abominable, a perversion of the way things should be. People didn't think about it; they just accepted that heterosexual monogamous marriage was the only acceptable place for sexual activity.

Then, something happened: society decided that the "old standards" we're not acceptable; if a sexual behavior was to be prohibited, it'd have to be because there it's the logical thing to do.

So, "gay rights" became an issue in the second half of the 20th century. Its advocates appealed to the idea that love is all that is needed (provided no one was exploited) to make a romantic and sexual relationship valid.If this were true, then that meant that denying gay people the freedom to engage in homosexual relationships was by default the denial of their basic rights. After a few decades of the media machine spouting this message, society bought into this idea. In the early 2000s decade the Supreme Court ruled that all state Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. About 10 years later, people would wake up to a United States where gay marriage was legal in most states. I predict that in 10 years not a single state will still have laws against gay marriage (or at least, the states that do would not be able to enforce these laws).

In the not too distant future, zoophiles, pedophiles, and sister smoochers (for lack of a better term) will begin campaigning for the right to engage in such relationships.By the standards even of most Pro-Gay people today, such a request would be foolishness, and surely our Government would not allow it, right?

Well, why not? I mean, if two siblings are adults and they both consent, why shouldn't they be able to have sex and get married? Is it because there's the potential for one person to coerce (though not technically force) their sibling into having sex with them? Well, though this might happen sometimes, there's also the possibility that the legalization of sodomy would lead to male bosses coercing their male employees into having sex, or a male friend might coerce you into having sex, but that isn't enough to deter the legalization of sodomy.Is it the fear that they'll have deformed children? That's not a good reason; sterilization and abortion are handy options.Is it that it'll reduce population growth? That wasn't enough to deter gay marriage, and besides, those omniscient intellectual elites say that the Earth needs to be less populated.Is it that brother-sister sex is gross? Well, plenty of people thought that homosexuality was gross, but that obviously wasn't a good reason.So tell me: why shouldn't incest between consenting adults be legalized?

Then, there's pedophilia. I don't have any argument in favor of it (I'm sure somebody will make a compelling case for it in the future), but child pornography should be allowed, right? To satisfy the libido of those sexually frustrated pedophiles, of course. Is it exploiting children? Not really; they don't care who sees them naked, and if they're embarrassed by it later in life, go suck it. And if not real children, then child hentai. It exploits no one.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

I see absolutely no reason you entire diatribe should not be considered fallacy of the slippery slope type. And it hasn't, and probably won't, hold up in a court of law (ie : SCOTUS). So flap your jaws all you want. It's just hot air.

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:I'll explain what the Slippery Slope is as it is used in the gay marriage debate:

100 years ago or so, which sexual behaviors were and were not acceptable was not decided by people discussing it. Rather, people automatically accepted that certain sexual behaviors were abominable, a perversion of the way things should be. People didn't think about it; they just accepted that heterosexual monogamous marriage was the only acceptable place for sexual activity.

Then, something happened: society decided that the "old standards" we're not acceptable; if a sexual behavior was to be prohibited, it'd have to be because there it's the logical thing to do.

So, "gay rights" became an issue in the second half of the 20th century. Its advocates appealed to the idea that love is all that is needed (provided no one was exploited) to make a romantic and sexual relationship valid.If this were true, then that meant that denying gay people the freedom to engage in homosexual relationships was by default the denial of their basic rights. After a few decades of the media machine spouting this message, society bought into this idea. In the early 2000s decade the Supreme Court ruled that all state Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. About 10 years later, people would wake up to a United States where gay marriage was legal in most states. I predict that in 10 years not a single state will still have laws against gay marriage (or at least, the states that do would not be able to enforce these laws).

In the not too distant future, zoophiles, pedophiles, and sister smoochers (for lack of a better term) will begin campaigning for the right to engage in such relationships.By the standards even of most Pro-Gay people today, such a request would be foolishness, and surely our Government would not allow it, right?

Well, why not? I mean, if two siblings are adults and they both consent, why shouldn't they be able to have sex and get married? Is it because there's the potential for one person to coerce (though not technically force) their sibling into having sex with them? Well, though this might happen sometimes, there's also the possibility that the legalization of sodomy would lead to male bosses coercing their male employees into having sex, or a male friend might coerce you into having sex, but that isn't enough to deter the legalization of sodomy.Is it the fear that they'll have deformed children? That's not a good reason; sterilization and abortion are handy options.Is it that it'll reduce population growth? That wasn't enough to deter gay marriage, and besides, those omniscient intellectual elites say that the Earth needs to be less populated.Is it that brother-sister sex is gross? Well, plenty of people thought that homosexuality was gross, but that obviously wasn't a good reason.So tell me: why shouldn't incest between consenting adults be legalized?

Then, there's pedophilia. I don't have any argument in favor of it (I'm sure somebody will make a compelling case for it in the future), but child pornography should be allowed, right? To satisfy the libido of those sexually frustrated pedophiles, of course. Is it exploiting children? Not really; they don't care who sees them naked, and if they're embarrassed by it later in life, go suck it. And if not real children, then child hentai. It exploits no one.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

I see absolutely no reason you entire diatribe should not be considered fallacy of the slippery slope type. And it hasn't, and probably won't, hold up in a court of law (ie : SCOTUS). So flap your jaws all you want. It's just hot air.

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

Laws adapt to the needs and desires of society. When the day comes that a significant portion of our population looks at goats and thinks "damn that is one sexy thing", then perhaps we can discuss the legalizing of zoophilia. Until then, not going to happen no matter how many conservative chicken little's we have running around.

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:I'll explain what the Slippery Slope is as it is used in the gay marriage debate:

100 years ago or so, which sexual behaviors were and were not acceptable was not decided by people discussing it. Rather, people automatically accepted that certain sexual behaviors were abominable, a perversion of the way things should be. People didn't think about it; they just accepted that heterosexual monogamous marriage was the only acceptable place for sexual activity.

Then, something happened: society decided that the "old standards" we're not acceptable; if a sexual behavior was to be prohibited, it'd have to be because there it's the logical thing to do.

So, "gay rights" became an issue in the second half of the 20th century. Its advocates appealed to the idea that love is all that is needed (provided no one was exploited) to make a romantic and sexual relationship valid.If this were true, then that meant that denying gay people the freedom to engage in homosexual relationships was by default the denial of their basic rights. After a few decades of the media machine spouting this message, society bought into this idea. In the early 2000s decade the Supreme Court ruled that all state Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. About 10 years later, people would wake up to a United States where gay marriage was legal in most states. I predict that in 10 years not a single state will still have laws against gay marriage (or at least, the states that do would not be able to enforce these laws).

In the not too distant future, zoophiles, pedophiles, and sister smoochers (for lack of a better term) will begin campaigning for the right to engage in such relationships.By the standards even of most Pro-Gay people today, such a request would be foolishness, and surely our Government would not allow it, right?

Well, why not? I mean, if two siblings are adults and they both consent, why shouldn't they be able to have sex and get married? Is it because there's the potential for one person to coerce (though not technically force) their sibling into having sex with them? Well, though this might happen sometimes, there's also the possibility that the legalization of sodomy would lead to male bosses coercing their male employees into having sex, or a male friend might coerce you into having sex, but that isn't enough to deter the legalization of sodomy.Is it the fear that they'll have deformed children? That's not a good reason; sterilization and abortion are handy options.Is it that it'll reduce population growth? That wasn't enough to deter gay marriage, and besides, those omniscient intellectual elites say that the Earth needs to be less populated.Is it that brother-sister sex is gross? Well, plenty of people thought that homosexuality was gross, but that obviously wasn't a good reason.So tell me: why shouldn't incest between consenting adults be legalized?

Then, there's pedophilia. I don't have any argument in favor of it (I'm sure somebody will make a compelling case for it in the future), but child pornography should be allowed, right? To satisfy the libido of those sexually frustrated pedophiles, of course. Is it exploiting children? Not really; they don't care who sees them naked, and if they're embarrassed by it later in life, go suck it. And if not real children, then child hentai. It exploits no one.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

I see absolutely no reason you entire diatribe should not be considered fallacy of the slippery slope type. And it hasn't, and probably won't, hold up in a court of law (ie : SCOTUS). So flap your jaws all you want. It's just hot air.

You literally haven't responded to anything I just said.

Do you at all grasp the concepts of "adult" , "informed consent", "age of majority ", etc, etc, etc? Can you cite even one example of what you porport that wasn't deemed a nuisance suit. I don't mean just the USA, anywhere in the world? Can you cite even one country / nation with same sex marriage where society has imploded.

You have absolutely nothing but unfounded conjecture to use as a scare tactic. Disgusting.

Why don't you present your arguments to the court if you are so proud of them? They have most like already been presented and failed. But why let that stop you.? There is no law against stupidity.

At 2/22/2015 1:08:03 AM, briantheliberal wrote:As everyone already knows, I have always been a strong advocate for gay rights. As a human being, and not just a liberal or LGBT, I feel that it is not only important, but beneficial for society to protect the rights of LGBT individuals. Unfortunately, not everyone agrees with this, which is fine, that is until they start to push their disagreement into the law, denying our rights and trampling on the freedom of their fellow LGBT citizens. So I am starting this forum topic to discuss a major issue I have noticed regarding the biased views, ignorance and misconceptions of conservatives regarding homosexuality, and gay rights.

I have debated with conservatives on the topic of homosexuality, and various other gay issues and each time I have been met with disappointment. Besides religion, I have yet to hear at least ONE logical or compelling argument against homosexuality, same-sex marriage or gay rights in general. In fact, most, if not all, conservatives I have debated with on the topic have not been able to present an argument without resorting to "slippery slope" arguments and other logical fallacy. This leads me to believe their opposition is merely based on ignorance and bigotry, however when I point this out they find every reason to deny this fact, and turn the tables on me, accusing me of attacking them because I pointed out the bias, hypocrisy, inconsistencies and lack of logic in their arguments. They would even go as far to call me intolerant because I did not tolerate their intolerance.

So has anyone else had this issue? If so, how do you deal with it? I find it very annoying and frustrating to say the least. And if you are opposed to the issues I stated above, feel free to explain why (if you can) WITHOUT being logically flawed and inconsistent. Thanks everyone!

There is one obvious answer to the 'gay marriage problem'. Stop the state from interfering in marriage, this includes recognision, alimony's and other evils. A piece of paper should not make anybody married. Anyone should be able to have a ceremony and call themselves man and wife and anybody should be free to recognise the union or not.

I WILL DECIDE WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT. I AM SPIRITUAL, NOT RELIGIOYUS. YOU DONT HAVE TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BELIEVE IN GOD, AND YOU DO WORSHIP MONEY IF YOU CARE MORE ABOUT YOUR WALLET THAAN YOU DO THE POOR. YOU ARE A TROLL THAT IS OUT FOR ATTENTUION."- SitaraMusica

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:I'll explain what the Slippery Slope is as it is used in the gay marriage debate:

100 years ago or so, which sexual behaviors were and were not acceptable was not decided by people discussing it. Rather, people automatically accepted that certain sexual behaviors were abominable, a perversion of the way things should be. People didn't think about it; they just accepted that heterosexual monogamous marriage was the only acceptable place for sexual activity.

Then, something happened: society decided that the "old standards" we're not acceptable; if a sexual behavior was to be prohibited, it'd have to be because there it's the logical thing to do.

So, "gay rights" became an issue in the second half of the 20th century. Its advocates appealed to the idea that love is all that is needed (provided no one was exploited) to make a romantic and sexual relationship valid.If this were true, then that meant that denying gay people the freedom to engage in homosexual relationships was by default the denial of their basic rights. After a few decades of the media machine spouting this message, society bought into this idea. In the early 2000s decade the Supreme Court ruled that all state Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. About 10 years later, people would wake up to a United States where gay marriage was legal in most states. I predict that in 10 years not a single state will still have laws against gay marriage (or at least, the states that do would not be able to enforce these laws).

In the not too distant future, zoophiles, pedophiles, and sister smoochers (for lack of a better term) will begin campaigning for the right to engage in such relationships.By the standards even of most Pro-Gay people today, such a request would be foolishness, and surely our Government would not allow it, right?

Well, why not? I mean, if two siblings are adults and they both consent, why shouldn't they be able to have sex and get married? Is it because there's the potential for one person to coerce (though not technically force) their sibling into having sex with them? Well, though this might happen sometimes, there's also the possibility that the legalization of sodomy would lead to male bosses coercing their male employees into having sex, or a male friend might coerce you into having sex, but that isn't enough to deter the legalization of sodomy.Is it the fear that they'll have deformed children? That's not a good reason; sterilization and abortion are handy options.Is it that it'll reduce population growth? That wasn't enough to deter gay marriage, and besides, those omniscient intellectual elites say that the Earth needs to be less populated.Is it that brother-sister sex is gross? Well, plenty of people thought that homosexuality was gross, but that obviously wasn't a good reason.So tell me: why shouldn't incest between consenting adults be legalized?

Then, there's pedophilia. I don't have any argument in favor of it (I'm sure somebody will make a compelling case for it in the future), but child pornography should be allowed, right? To satisfy the libido of those sexually frustrated pedophiles, of course. Is it exploiting children? Not really; they don't care who sees them naked, and if they're embarrassed by it later in life, go suck it. And if not real children, then child hentai. It exploits no one.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

I see absolutely no reason you entire diatribe should not be considered fallacy of the slippery slope type. And it hasn't, and probably won't, hold up in a court of law (ie : SCOTUS). So flap your jaws all you want. It's just hot air.

You literally haven't responded to anything I just said.

Do you at all grasp the concepts of "adult" , "informed consent", "age of majority ", etc, etc, etc? Can you cite even one example of what you porport that wasn't deemed a nuisance suit. I don't mean just the USA, anywhere in the world? Can you cite even one country / nation with same sex marriage where society has imploded.

You have absolutely nothing but unfounded conjecture to use as a scare tactic. Disgusting.

Why don't you present your arguments to the court if you are so proud of them? They have most like already been presented and failed. But why let that stop you.? There is no law against stupidity.

There's no point in me continuing to talk to you, as you have no rational thoughts to add to this conversation. Everything that I said here was logical, valid, and free from fallacy. The slippery slope "fallacy" has been, in this case, proven to not be fallacious at all. You are responding to me simply because what I said is offensive to you, though it is the truth. Goodbye.

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

Laws adapt to the needs and desires of society. When the day comes that a significant portion of our population looks at goats and thinks "damn that is one sexy thing", then perhaps we can discuss the legalizing of zoophilia. Until then, not going to happen no matter how many conservative chicken little's we have running around.

Of course. I did not say that it would follow immediately after the legalization of gay marriage. We'll probably have to wait a few decades before the results are in.

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

Laws adapt to the needs and desires of society. When the day comes that a significant portion of our population looks at goats and thinks "damn that is one sexy thing", then perhaps we can discuss the legalizing of zoophilia. Until then, not going to happen no matter how many conservative chicken little's we have running around.

Of course. I did not say that it would follow immediately after the legalization of gay marriage. We'll probably have to wait a few decades before the results are in.

At 2/22/2015 2:44:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:I'll explain what the Slippery Slope is as it is used in the gay marriage debate:

100 years ago or so, which sexual behaviors were and were not acceptable was not decided by people discussing it. Rather, people automatically accepted that certain sexual behaviors were abominable, a perversion of the way things should be. People didn't think about it; they just accepted that heterosexual monogamous marriage was the only acceptable place for sexual activity.

Then, something happened: society decided that the "old standards" we're not acceptable; if a sexual behavior was to be prohibited, it'd have to be because there it's the logical thing to do.

So, "gay rights" became an issue in the second half of the 20th century. Its advocates appealed to the idea that love is all that is needed (provided no one was exploited) to make a romantic and sexual relationship valid.If this were true, then that meant that denying gay people the freedom to engage in homosexual relationships was by default the denial of their basic rights. After a few decades of the media machine spouting this message, society bought into this idea. In the early 2000s decade the Supreme Court ruled that all state Anti-Sodomy laws were unconstitutional. About 10 years later, people would wake up to a United States where gay marriage was legal in most states. I predict that in 10 years not a single state will still have laws against gay marriage (or at least, the states that do would not be able to enforce these laws).

In the not too distant future, zoophiles, pedophiles, and sister smoochers (for lack of a better term) will begin campaigning for the right to engage in such relationships.By the standards even of most Pro-Gay people today, such a request would be foolishness, and surely our Government would not allow it, right?

Well, why not? I mean, if two siblings are adults and they both consent, why shouldn't they be able to have sex and get married? Is it because there's the potential for one person to coerce (though not technically force) their sibling into having sex with them? Well, though this might happen sometimes, there's also the possibility that the legalization of sodomy would lead to male bosses coercing their male employees into having sex, or a male friend might coerce you into having sex, but that isn't enough to deter the legalization of sodomy.Is it the fear that they'll have deformed children? That's not a good reason; sterilization and abortion are handy options.Is it that it'll reduce population growth? That wasn't enough to deter gay marriage, and besides, those omniscient intellectual elites say that the Earth needs to be less populated.Is it that brother-sister sex is gross? Well, plenty of people thought that homosexuality was gross, but that obviously wasn't a good reason.So tell me: why shouldn't incest between consenting adults be legalized?

Then, there's pedophilia. I don't have any argument in favor of it (I'm sure somebody will make a compelling case for it in the future), but child pornography should be allowed, right? To satisfy the libido of those sexually frustrated pedophiles, of course. Is it exploiting children? Not really; they don't care who sees them naked, and if they're embarrassed by it later in life, go suck it. And if not real children, then child hentai. It exploits no one.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Finally, there's zoophilia. I don't have an argument as to why sex with animals should be allowed (other than perhaps that doing things to animals such as killing them that isn't allowed on humans is permitted so why not sex; the animals are usually quite horny anyway), but somebody will probably eventually come up with one. Animal pornography should be legalized, as an animal literally doesn't give a f*** who looks at pictures of its genitalia.So tell me: why shouldn't it be legalized?

Answer me this, libbies. Why not?

I see absolutely no reason you entire diatribe should not be considered fallacy of the slippery slope type. And it hasn't, and probably won't, hold up in a court of law (ie : SCOTUS). So flap your jaws all you want. It's just hot air.

You literally haven't responded to anything I just said.

Because nothing you said was worth responding to honestly. He is right, it's just hot air. I couldn't even read past the first two lines without already knowing how ridiculous your arguments are.